parshiot

Thursday, January 29, 2004

Shmot 12:40 states:וּמוֹשַׁב בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲשֶׁר יָשְׁבוּ בְּמִצְרָיִם--שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה, וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה."Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years."

Now Chazal take this as starting from the time of Yitzchak. The real count is: Yocheved was born as they entered Egypt, birthed Moshe at 130. Moshe took the Jews out of Egypt at 80. So that is 130 + 80 = 210 years.

Is 430 possible, though?

Shemot 6:14-20 gives the lineage of Moshe.Levi lived to 137. Kehoth 133. Amram 137. And Moshe was 80 when he took the Jews from Egypt.The sum total is 487. Now, Yosef was 30 when standing before Pharoah. The assumption (see my earlier posts on the subject) is that he was 39 when the Jews came to Egypt, but if the years of plenty had already commenced when he interpreted Pharoah's dream, he might be more like 34. Levi was older than Yosef, so he could be 36 or so. Otherwise, Levi would be at least 40, probably older when he came to Egypt. Say 40. That leaves 447 years left. Now the entire settlement in Egypt was 430, so if each man had his son at a late age, it is possible. There are 17 years left to overlap, possibly more if Yosef and therefore Levi were younger.

Why not assume this? First, Shemot 6:20 states:וַיִּקַּח עַמְרָם אֶת-יוֹכֶבֶד דֹּדָתוֹ, לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, וַתֵּלֶד לוֹ, אֶת-אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת-מֹשֶׁה; וּשְׁנֵי חַיֵּי עַמְרָם, שֶׁבַע וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה."And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bore him Aaron and Moses. And the years of the life of Amram were a hundred and thirty and seven years."

If Amram was the son of Kehat son of Levi, then Yocheved was the daughter of Levi. Earlier in Shemot 2:1וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ, מִבֵּית לֵוִי; וַיִּקַּח, אֶת-בַּת-לֵוִי."And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi."

The pasuk in perek 2 ambiguously states Amram and Yocheved's identity. Amram is a "man from the house of Levi." אֶת-בַּת-לֵוִי could be the actual daughter of Levi, or a woman from the house of Levi. Taking it to be the actual daughter of Levi makes the reckoning difficult.

Why? Chazal say she was 130 when she gave birth to Moshe and was born upon entering Egypt. Moshe was 80. This makes the timespan in Egypt 210, not 430. Some want to make her younger so that Moshe's birth was not an unmentioned miracle. If so, by other accounts Levi would have to have fathered her very late.

However, let us assign the maximum. Levi fathered her at 137. She birthed Moshe at 130. Moshe redeemed the Jews at 80. The sum total is 397, which is not 430. And Levi only came to Egypt after several decades in Canaan.

The other possiblity is that Yocheved is a daughter of the tribe of Levi, not the person Levi. Then she can be much younger, and we can revert to the earlier calculation for 430 years in Egypt.

What does דֹּדָתוֹ mean? It could mean beloved. (Tg Yonatan says חביבתיה which literally means beloved but is Aramaic for the same concept as דֹּדָתוֹ and is documented to mean aunt in many a location, so Tg Yonatan actually supports the aunt theory.) It possibly might designate a relative or some relation, but we are not sure what exactly - we would need to be native speakers of Biblical Hebrew. {Note to self: we have similar problems by the two Tzidkiyahus, I recall.}

Possibly, we could answer that the pasuk in perek 6 is derivitive of the pasuk in perek 2. That is, perek 2 was ambiguous, and perek 6 took a specific intepretation when trying to calculate the chronology/geneology. That is, those specific psukim could be the work of a sadran, a redactor (from say, Anshe Kenesset HaGedolah) basing himself on the original text and providing helpful parenthetical notes. This would account for the verses like עד היום הזה when referring to events by Moshe's death which should date to the authorship of the text but would then be meaningless, and so there must be some time differential. Thus the pasuk in perek 6 would be a mistaken disambiguation of perek 2.

Update: This would mean, of course, that we are off 220 years from the actual date, assuming all other date calculations are correct. Which makes it good that we write on documents like a ketuba "Liminyan SheAnu Monin Kaan."

Also, to pick up on the potential that דֹּדָתוֹ does not mean aunt but beloved, I think I can claim that Chazal agree with me. Chazal are not monolithic - there is room for debate amidst aggada aside from halacha. Chazal certainly say she was the aunt. However, elsewhere (see Mechilta at the beginning of VaEra for example) Chazal say that Amram fooled the Egyptians and thus managed to save Moshe's life.

How? When Moshe was conceived, Amram divorced his wife, and all of Israel followed suit. Three months later he remarried Yocheved his wife, and the Egyptians counted from that time. When they reckoned 6 months, Moshe had had 9 months to develop and was then born. They then were able to hide him for 3 months before the Egyptians could suspect.

Where is this midrash located in the Mechilta? In VaEra, after a midrash about the first few psukim. Thus it is perfectly situated to be a midrash about the דֹּדָתוֹ pasuk in perek 6. All we need say is that דֹּדָתוֹ means beloved. This is then the source for the midrash. He took his beloved - that is his wife whom he loved, as a wife.

Why would Amram need to do that? He must have divorced her. Why? Then we can look at the context of the drowning of the Jewish children in the Nile and the fact that Moshe escaped this fate.

Thus, at least some members of Chazal took דֹּדָתוֹ as beloved, not aunt. If so, the counting I did above can work out.

And Moses said: 'Thou hast spoken well; I will see thy face again no more.'"

And then immediately following, in the next pasuk, Shemot 11:1וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, עוֹד נֶגַע אֶחָד אָבִיא עַל-פַּרְעֹה וְעַל-מִצְרַיִם--אַחֲרֵי-כֵן, יְשַׁלַּח אֶתְכֶם מִזֶּה: כְּשַׁלְּחוֹ--כָּלָה, גָּרֵשׁ יְגָרֵשׁ אֶתְכֶם מִזֶּה.
And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Yet one plague more will I bring upon Pharaoh, and upon Egypt; afterwards he will let you go hence; when he shall let you go, he shall surely thrust you out hence altogether.

and then in psukim 4 and 5:
וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה, כֹּה אָמַר ה: כַּחֲצֹת הַלַּיְלָה, אֲנִי יוֹצֵא בְּתוֹךְ מִצְרָיִם.
וּמֵת כָּל-בְּכוֹר, בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם--מִבְּכוֹר פַּרְעֹה הַיֹּשֵׁב עַל-כִּסְאוֹ, עַד בְּכוֹר הַשִּׁפְחָה אֲשֶׁר אַחַר הָרֵחָיִם; וְכֹל, בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה.
"And Moses said: 'Thus saith the LORD: About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt;
and all the first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the first-born of the maid-servant that is behind the mill; and all the first-born of cattle."

Moshe did not know of this plague before Hashem told him there would be another plague, yet he could have seen the ב on the staff and known there was one more to come, and so would not have confirmed to Pharoah that he would not see him again. As it was, Hashem had to make an exception and speak to him within Pharoah's court.

More than that, one can ask what was Moshe's source that the next plague would be Makat Bechorot? Hashem just said another nega, but did not specify what it was. You cannot refer to the staff if Moshe did not even know of the existence of the next plague at first. And, the drasha of ספר which worked for locusts does not work here. Perhaps you can find another derasha. The easiest seems that Hashem told Moshe but that fact is not mentioned in a pasuk, like I suggested above.

Tuesday, January 27, 2004

Hashem tells Moshe to speak to Pharoah because He hardened Pharoah's heart: Shemot 10:1-2:
וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, בֹּא אֶל-פַּרְעֹה: כִּי-אֲנִי הִכְבַּדְתִּי אֶת-לִבּוֹ, וְאֶת-לֵב עֲבָדָיו, לְמַעַן שִׁתִי אֹתֹתַי אֵלֶּה, בְּקִרְבּוֹ.
וּלְמַעַן תְּסַפֵּר בְּאָזְנֵי בִנְךָ וּבֶן-בִּנְךָ, אֵת אֲשֶׁר הִתְעַלַּלְתִּי בְּמִצְרַיִם, וְאֶת-אֹתֹתַי, אֲשֶׁר-שַׂמְתִּי בָם; וִידַעְתֶּם, כִּי-אֲנִי ה.
"And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Go in unto Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might show these My signs in the midst of them;
and that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son's son, what I have wrought upon Egypt, and My signs which I have done among them; that ye may know that I am the LORD.'"

But Hashem does not tell Moshe what the plague will be. Yet, Moshe tells Pharoah that the plague will be locusts: Shmot 10:3-4:

Daat Zekenim MiBaalei HaTosafot is troubled by this issue. He suggests that the roshei tevot of the plagues were engraved on Moshe's staff, so he knew what the next plague would be. {I would have a a problem with that, since how did Moshe then know what the Alef stood for.} He then suggests it is because Hashem told Moshe וּלְמַעַן תְּסַפֵּר. And he knew that locusts is something you tell people about, as we see in Yoel 1:3:

עָלֶיהָ, לִבְנֵיכֶם סַפֵּרוּ; וּבְנֵיכֶם, לִבְנֵיהֶם, וּבְנֵיהֶם, לְדוֹר אַחֵר.
יֶתֶר הַגָּזָם אָכַל הָאַרְבֶּה, וְיֶתֶר הָאַרְבֶּה אָכַל הַיָּלֶק; וְיֶתֶר הַיֶּלֶק, אָכַל הֶחָסִיל.
"Tell ye your children of it, and let your children tell their children, and their children another generation.
That which the palmer-worm hath left hath the locust eaten; and that which the locust hath left hath the canker-worm eaten; and that which the canker-worm hath left hath the caterpiller eaten."

I would add that our own local pasuk doesn't only have תְּסַפֵּר but even has בְּאָזְנֵי בִנְךָ וּבֶן-בִּנְךָ which then parallels the pasuk in Yoel even more.

Also, one might say this is entirely a non-issue. Often the Biblical account leaves out details which need not be told, even though they happened, and will bring up the fact that it was told later or else leave it implicit, for the reader to surmise. The best prooftext I can come up with is from Yonah. In Yonah 1:10 the sailors are yell at Yonah because they are upset with the consequences of his actions, yet the Navi does not mention earlier that he told them that he had fled, so how could they know. The pasuk answers:

וַיִּירְאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים יִרְאָה גְדוֹלָה, וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו מַה-זֹּאת עָשִׂיתָ: כִּי-יָדְעוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים, כִּי-מִלִּפְנֵי יְהוָה הוּא בֹרֵחַ--כִּי הִגִּיד, לָהֶם.
"Then were the men exceedingly afraid, and said unto him: 'What is this that thou hast done?' For the men knew that he fled from the presence of the LORD, because he had told them."

וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, בֹּא אֶל-פַּרְעֹה: כִּי-אֲנִי הִכְבַּדְתִּי אֶת-לִבּוֹ, וְאֶת-לֵב עֲבָדָיו, לְמַעַן שִׁתִי אֹתֹתַי אֵלֶּה, בְּקִרְבּוֹ.
"And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Go in unto Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might show these My signs in the midst of them;"

It is strange that Pharoah's servants are mentioned (as they generally are not), and that here not only Pharoah but his servants harden their hearts. Ibn Ezra suggests this is so that they will soften their hearts by the upcoming plague of locusts. This would be in Shemot 10:7:

I would say that while it is important to mention hardening of the heart of the servants to provide contrast, the servants still must harden their hearts from something. That is, it must be a reaction to or a recovery from the previous plague that struck Egypt. And so we see in Shemot 9:14 that the plague was on Pharoah and his servants plus the general nation:

כִּי בַּפַּעַם הַזֹּאת, אֲנִי שֹׁלֵחַ אֶת-כָּל-מַגֵּפֹתַי אֶל-לִבְּךָ, וּבַעֲבָדֶיךָ, וּבְעַמֶּךָ--בַּעֲבוּר תֵּדַע, כִּי אֵין כָּמֹנִי בְּכָל-הָאָרֶץ.
"For I will this time send all My plagues upon thy person, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like Me in all the earth."

Note that the translation is "your person" for אֶל-לִבְּךָ where literally it means your heart. Further it is followed by וּבַעֲבָדֶיךָ, such that we could render "in your servants' hearts," which could be a foreshadowing of the current pasuk we are examining, or else explicitly stating that the precious plague was to affect the servants hears, and yet they hardened their hearts.

It was also up to the servants to listen to Moshe's words or not, as in 9:20-21:
הַיָּרֵא אֶת-דְּבַר יְהוָה, מֵעַבְדֵי פַּרְעֹה--הֵנִיס אֶת-עֲבָדָיו וְאֶת-מִקְנֵהוּ, אֶל-הַבָּתִּים.
וַאֲשֶׁר לֹא-שָׂם לִבּוֹ, אֶל-דְּבַר יְהוָה--וַיַּעֲזֹב אֶת-עֲבָדָיו וְאֶת-מִקְנֵהוּ, בַּשָּׂדֶה.
" He that feared the word of the LORD among the servants of Pharaoh made his servants and his cattle flee into the houses;
and he that regarded not the word of the LORD left his servants and his cattle in the field."

Also curious is the last word of the pasuk. Again, we are considering the pasuk:

וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, בֹּא אֶל-פַּרְעֹה: כִּי-אֲנִי הִכְבַּדְתִּי אֶת-לִבּוֹ, וְאֶת-לֵב עֲבָדָיו, לְמַעַן שִׁתִי אֹתֹתַי אֵלֶּה, בְּקִרְבּוֹ.
"And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Go in unto Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might show these My signs in the midst of them;"

How can Hashem show His signs in the midst of one person? Further, if Pharaoh and his servants are mentioned, why not in *their* midst?

Onkelos translates בְּקִרְבּוֹ as ביניהון. Tg Yonatan translates it as ביניהון. Does this reflect a different girsah in the pasuk? Perhaps, but I doubt it. Ramban presumably has our pasuk and he paraphrases למען שאשית בקרבם אלה האותות.

Either they are reading what is more comfortable - what should be there, or בְּקִרְבּוֹ references a collective of Pharaoh and his servants in the singular, something I think is not grammatically impossible. I've seen scholars use similar translations, say from LXX (Septuagint), to suggest a variant reading for the pasuk, but I think this need not be proof of a variant. After all the purpose of a Targum is not to render literally but to convey the meaning, which sometimes involves divergence from an absolutely literal rendition.

Get thee unto Pharaoh in the morning; lo, he goeth out unto the water; and thou shalt stand by the river's brink to meet him; and the rod which was turned to a serpent shalt thou take in thy hand."

Rashi cited Shemot Rabba that the reason Pharoah went to the water was to go to the bathroom. Pharoah claimed to be a god, who did not need to go to the bathroom, and he would awake early to go to the Nile and there he would go to the bathroom.

I saw the derivation in Tg Yonatan. In a later pasuk, 7:23, at the end of the encounter:
וַיִּפֶן פַּרְעֹה, וַיָּבֹא אֶל-בֵּיתוֹ; וְלֹא-שָׁת לִבּוֹ, גַּם-לָזֹאת.
"And Pharaoh turned and went into his house, neither did he lay even this to heart."

Tg Yonatan translates וַיִּפֶן פַּרְעֹה as "Pharoah took care of his needs," that is he went to the bathroom. He does not connect this to an attempt to appear as a deity. However, one could possibly make the derivation that he took care of his needs here and only then returned to his house, implying that he did not take care of his needs in his house.

Even so, Tg Yonatan gives a different reason for Pharoah going to the Nile by the first pasuk I cited. He claims it was to do ksamim (magics) upon it. This is actually somewhat supported by the narrative. for after Moshe and Aharon turn the Nile into blood, the magicians do likewise, at which point Pharoah hardens his heart and does not listen to Moshe and Aharon. What are the magicians doing there? It makes sense if he went with them to do magic on the Nile, but less so if he is trying to quietly relieve himself so that no one will know.

Wednesday, January 21, 2004

A six-month study by a senior researcher at St. Petersburg's Institute of Oceanology and a Hamburg-based colleague seeks to explore and detail the physics behind the Biblical account of the Jews crossing the sea during their flight from slavery in Egypt.

The study, published in the Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences and reported upon today in The Moscow Times, concludes that a reef running along the north side of the sea could have been the "dry land" upon which the Jews crossed - providing that a 30-meter-per-second (67 mph) wind blew across the sea all night, leaving the reef dry. The cessation of the wind would then lead to the drowning of the pursuing Egyptian forces, trapped on the reef as the waters returned, as recorded in the Bible.

The Russia-based researcher, Naum Volziger, who specializes in flooding and tidal waves, told a Moscow Times reporter, "It would take the Jews - there were 600,000 of them [male Jews "aged 20 and over" - ed. note] - four hours to cross the seven-kilometer reef that runs from one coast to another. Then, in half an hour, the waters would come back."

Volziger said he and his colleague studied the issue "strictly from Isaac Newton's point of view." However, the researcher did acknowledged, "I am convinced that G-d rules the Earth through the laws of physics."

Tuesday, January 20, 2004

A visitor to this site, Jonathan, commented that in Freud's book "Moses and Monotheism" (1939) Freud asserts that the name Moshe came from Egyptian for child, Mośe (with a sin), and not from the Hebrew.

William Propp in the Anchor Bible cites (Griffiths 1953) for this, and has a discussion about it.

I think there are several difficulties with this assertion though. First, there is a pasuk. This pasuk gives the etymology. In Shemot 2:10:וַיִּגְדַּל הַיֶּלֶד, וַתְּבִאֵהוּ לְבַת-פַּרְעֹה, וַיְהִי-לָהּ, לְבֵן; וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ, מֹשֶׁה, וַתֹּאמֶר, כִּי מִן-הַמַּיִם מְשִׁיתִהוּ."And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses, and said: 'Because I drew him out of the water.'"

However, there are several theological difficulties claiming that the etymology is Egyptian and not what is given in the pasuk. First, if one believes in Divine Authorship of the Torah then one cannot assume that the etymology is mistaken. If one believes the Torah is Truth one cannot say the Torah "invents imaginary spurious etymologies." (Propp referring to Zakovitch 1980; Garsiel 1992) Further, Moshe wrote the Torah. Would he be mistaken or ignorant of the true etymology of his name?

More than that, the etymology seems phonologically unsound ( ;) ). Propp himself admits that "we might admittedly have expected *mose(h), not moše(h)," but he claims that those who voice those concerns provide no credible alternative.

That probably is that the samech is a closer approximation to the Egyptian phone [s] than shin.

I would add: After all, the claim is that this is the same name as mose in Thutmose and Ramses. The name Ramses is mentioned in close proximity. In Shemot 1:11, we read:

וַיָּשִׂימוּ עָלָיו שָׂרֵי מִסִּים, לְמַעַן עַנֹּתוֹ בְּסִבְלֹתָם; וַיִּבֶן עָרֵי מִסְכְּנוֹת, לְפַרְעֹה--אֶת-פִּתֹם, וְאֶת-רַעַמְסֵס."Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh store-cities, Pithom and Raamses."

The Hebrew character used to encode the Egyptian "s" phone is samech. Why would we have a shin instead. And we cannot even claim it is a sin, since the etymology provided ( כִּי מִן-הַמַּיִם מְשִׁיתִהוּ) shows that a shin is intended.

Further, those who claim Moshe's name comes from the Egyptian have to also claim it is a partial name. That is, it was "born/child of water," or "child of Egyptian deity X," and the first part was lopped off and just "Moshe" was left. This is also a difficulty, and overall makes it more difficult in my opinion than the etymology explicitly given in the pasuk.

What are the problems that spark this alternative etymology? I think firstly there is a general attitude among modern commentators to dismiss out of hand etymologies provided within the Torah text as fanciful.

But more than that, the problems are 1) how an Egyptian princess gave the child a Hebrew name with a Hebrew etymology and 2) the name, based on the etymology in the pasuk, perhaps should have been different.

Addressing #1:We see Pharoah's daughter was able to speak to Miriam when the latter offered to find a Hebrew nursemaid, and was able to speak to the Yocheved as well (though this might be the Hebrew slaves knowing Egyptian rather than the opposite). In the time of Yosef, the brothers did not know Yosef (who they saw as the Egyptian vizier) understood their speech because there was an interpreter between them. By this time the Jews either spoke Egyptian or the Egyptians spoke Hebrew. We have already about a century of time in which the Hebrews lived in Egypt and served as slaves. When you have two populations living in close proximity, one tends to pick up a bit of the other's language. Royalty especially might know Canaanite, given that it was a neighboring kingdom and there were presumably diplomatic relations between them.

Further, upon seeing the infant, Pharoah's daughter's reaction was "MiYaldei HaIvrim Zeh." She knew it was a Jewish child, and saw to it that he was nursed and partially brought up in a Jewish home. Further, Pharoah's daughter did not name him on the spot. As it says:וַיִּגְדַּל הַיֶּלֶד, וַתְּבִאֵהוּ לְבַת-פַּרְעֹה, וַיְהִי-לָהּ, לְבֵן; וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ, מֹשֶׁה, וַתֹּאמֶר, כִּי מִן-הַמַּיִם מְשִׁיתִהוּ"And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses, and said: 'Because I drew him out of the water.'"

Thus, she named him Moses later. In the meantime, knowing that this is a Jewish child, she might have likewise decided to give him a Jewish name, and consulted with Yoacheved, Miriam, or some slaves working in the palace, described the intent she wanted the name to convey, taken their suggestions and then named the boy a Hebrew name. Given her recognition and treatment of Moshe as a Hebrew child, this is not farfetched at all.

Addressing #2:The form of Moshe's name is the kal. As a result it should mean "Drawer Out of Water," rather than "Drawn Out of the Water." To be "Drawn Out" Moshe's name would have to be משוי.

Ibn Ezra addresses this issue. He says not to wonder that Moshe's name is not משוי because names are not as carefully watched as verbs. That is, the verb forms must follow rules of grammar, but not so proper nouns. In other words, Moshe's name is not a verb - it is a name, and names are not subject to grammar.

There is an even better answer to this non-issue. That is, there is a form in Hebrew called the kal passive. It has the form of kal but denotes passive. This form is relatively rare, but it exists. Propp cites some who suggest the kal passive but rejects them on the basis of the rarity.

It seems to me that he is ignoring the fact that the places one would most expect to find rare/archaic forms would be in names and Biblical poetry. Thus the fact that it is a rare form should not pose any problem.

In poetry because it is fancy, and in names because it is fancy/formal and further because names are not as subject to the reformative forces of changing grammar. A place named X in year Y in a grammatically correct manner will still be called X by the populace in year Z even though the grammar has changed. We see a similar phenomenon in terms of the most common words. The most common words in English are most often the exception to modern grammatical rules. This is because they were in such use that they resisted the force of grammatical reform. (As a throwaway consider שתים, which has a dagesh in the tav even though it comes after a shva na. This may be a remnant from an earlier form of Hebrew where there was no rule against dagesh in beged kefet following shva na, and resisted the grammatical reform because it was such a common word.)

From a practical perspective, if Biblical scholars are prepared to reject the etymology given in the Torah, they should also be prepared to reject the story behind the etymology - that is, that he was named by Pharoah's daughter. That is, it is a great oversight to claim the etymology in the pasuk is fanciful and then cite the fact that he was named by Pharoah's daughter to bolster the idea that his name is Egyptian. Rather, once rejecting the pasuk's etymology, there is no longer a "problem" of the clash of kal with passive, so it could be regular kal. Why jump to an Egyptian etymology for a Hebrew character, a half-name at that, and one troubled by a phonological difficulty.

Thus, to sum up, I think the Egyptian etymology is fanciful. It matches "Moshe" to half of an Egyptian name, relying on the assumption that the rest of the name was lopped off. It uses a Hebrew phone somewhat more distant than it could from the [s] sound in Egyptian. We would have to say this difficult phone is used even though in close proximity we see in the "same" root (Ramses) a closer Hebrew phone in use. Contrast that with the Hebrew etymology for which we have an age-old tradition, which makes sense, is a full name, is not phonologically difficult, and it grammatically possible as the kal passive, a form which though rare does exist and is more likely to exist in proper nouns. And if one rejects the Torah's etymology, an alternative Hebrew etymology still seems more likely than the Egyptian.

In parashat Va`era, Moshe tells Pharaoh to release the Jews and, when Pharaoh refuses again and again, Moshe brings plague upon plague upon Egypt. The first of those plagues is that of blood. Aaron, at Moshe's command, stretches his staff over the waters, and the Nile turns to blood (7:20):וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-כֵן מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה, וַיָּרֶם בַּמַּטֶּה וַיַּךְ אֶת-הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר בַּיְאֹר, לְעֵינֵי פַרְעֹה, וּלְעֵינֵי עֲבָדָיו; וַיֵּהָפְכוּ כָּל-הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר-בַּיְאֹר, לְדָם"And Moses and Aaron did so, as the LORD commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood."

According to the description given in Hashem's commandment to Moshe (7:19), not just the Nile turned to blood, but also all existing pools of water, ponds and streams, as well as water in stone and wooden vessels would also turn to blood:וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, אֱמֹר אֶל-אַהֲרֹן קַח מַטְּךָ וּנְטֵה-יָדְךָ עַל-מֵימֵי מִצְרַיִם עַל-נַהֲרֹתָם עַל-יְאֹרֵיהֶם וְעַל-אַגְמֵיהֶם וְעַל כָּל-מִקְוֵה מֵימֵיהֶם--וְיִהְיוּ-דָם; וְהָיָה דָם בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, וּבָעֵצִים וּבָאֲבָנִים."And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Say unto Aaron: Take thy rod, and stretch out thy hand over the waters of Egypt, over their rivers, over their streams, and over their pools, and over all their ponds of water, that they may become blood; and there shall be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood and in vessels of stone.'"

There is thus a slight disparity between Hashem's description of what will happen and the Torah's description of what happened. The most obvious answer is that the Torah shortened its language and just described what happened to the Nile, and the reader can surmise the rest. I would expect some midrash to pick up on this though, and I have not encountered any such midrash. It is possible that the way the Torah informs us of the rest of the water turning to blood is in (7:21):

וְהַדָּגָה אֲשֶׁר-בַּיְאֹר מֵתָה, וַיִּבְאַשׁ הַיְאֹר, וְלֹא-יָכְלוּ מִצְרַיִם, לִשְׁתּוֹת מַיִם מִן-הַיְאֹר; וַיְהִי הַדָּם, בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.And the fish that was in the river died; and the river stank, and the Egyptians could not drink of the water of the river; and there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.

The last part, וַיְהִי הַדָּם, בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם, may very well refer to other sources of water.

Now, the midrash expands upon this miracle. We are told that the Egyptians could find no other sources of water. They dug wells and they were also full of blood. The Jews, however, did have water. If an Egyptian and Jew were drinking from the same vessel, the Jew would get water while the Egyptian would get blood. It did not turn to blood if the Egyptian bought the water from the Jew, and thus the Jews became wealthy.

This midrash is clearly at least in part based on (7:19) cited above, which is Hashem's description of what will happen in the plague: ... Take thy rod, and stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood, and in vessels of stone.

Thus, the midrash speaks about water in vessels turning to blood for the Egyptians, just as it does in the pasuk. Also, the stress over and over is *their* rivers, *their* ponds, *their* pools of water. That which is possessed by Egyptians turns to blood and that possessed by Jews does not.

One part of the midrashic claim, that they dug wells to try to get other sources of water and did not succeed, contradicts a pasuk! Pasuk 7:24 states:

וַיַּחְפְּרוּ כָל-מִצְרַיִם סְבִיבֹת הַיְאֹר, מַיִם לִשְׁתּוֹת: כִּי לֹא יָכְלוּ לִשְׁתֹּת, מִמֵּימֵי הַיְאֹר.And all the Egyptians digged round about the river for water to drink; for they could not drink of the water of the river.

This pasuk seems to imply that the Egyptians dug wells as an alternative water source and succeeded - they found water. They dug the wells since the Nile could not provide water, for it had turned to blood. The midrash claims that these wells also produced blood. One could argue that the pasuk makes no mention of success or failure; however, the *implication* of the pasuk on a simple level is that the Egyptians succeeded. Besides, what is the basis of the midrash's claim that they failed?

One could question how they *could* have been successful. After all, they dug wells right next to the Nile. Presumably any water they would get would be connected to the Nile - an underground river stemming from the Nile. If the well would be connected to the Nile and the Nile is blood, that found in the wells should also be blood. If so, why would they dig near the Nile "for they could bit drink from the water of the Nile?!" One could answer that the wells were not connected to the Nile, and so did not give forth blood, and the reason they dug wells near the Nile is that that was where the water was needed.

However you can answer the question, the question can still be asked. The answer, at least midrashically, is to read pasuk 7:24 in a different way. We see this midrashic reading in Targum Yonatan's translation. He writes, And all the Egyptians digged round about the river for water to drink, {and they could not find clear water} for they could not drink of the water that was in the river. The stuff in {} represents Tg Yonatan's midrashic insertion. Thus, the Egyptians failed in their quest for water, because the wells were connected to the river. This in turn transforms the import of the latter part of the verse: "for they could not drink of the water that was in the river" no longer is the motivation of the Egyptians digging the well, but rather the explanation for the Egyptians' failure. All in all, a transformation almost as miraculous of that of a staff to a snake. Thus, we have our source for the midrash within the troublesome pasuk itself.

Ibn Ezra, we can already predict, will not be happy. Ibn Ezra does not like to use miracles to explain difficulties in the reading of the text of Tanach. The explicit miracles are fine, but implicit, hidden miracles where they are not necessary are not. Thus, he will have problems with Yocheved, Moshe's mother, being born on the way into Egypt, for she would have to be 130 when she gave birth to Moshe, a miracle so impressive it should be recorded in the chumash. Here as well, if such a miracle should be explicitly mentioned, and instead, it contradicts a pasuk! (He did not necessarily chance upon the explanation presented by Tg Yonatan) More so, the blood becoming red or clear depending on its owner is such a miracle that it certainly should be written in the Torah. Ibn Ezra indeed says something like this.

This is what Ibn Ezra has to say on 7:24 (some of the weird punctuation as I found it):

And they dug: Many say thay the water was in the hands of the Egyptian red like blood and it whitened (cleared) in the hands of the Israelite. If so, why was this sign (miracle) not written in the Torah? In my opinion, the plague of blood and frogs and lice encompassed both Egyptians and Hebrews. For we shall run after that which is written. And these three did little damage. Only the plague of wild animals which was harsh. Hashem divied between the Egyptians and Israel, and simialrly the plague of hail and pestilence because of their cattle. And not so by boils. And not by locusts since they were leaving from Egypt. And just as the Egyptians dug wells, so too the Hebrews dug wells.

Thus, the blood plague affected both Jews and Egyptians equally, and they both dug wells about the Nile, and they both got clear water from those wells.

Avi Ezer is a running commentary on Ibn Ezra, and he is very frum about this sort of thing. He does not like Ibn Ezra's suggestion that both Egyptian and Jew were effected, for it goes against Chazal. He does not mention explicitly the issue of the Egyptians managing to get water despite the Nile being blood. Here is what he says:

[And in my opinion the plague of blood {Josh: affected both Jews and Egyptians}]: And we, we only have the words of our Rabbis of blessed memory, that from the plague of blood the Jews became rich {Josh: by selling water}. And even a gentile and an Israelite drinking from the same cup would be half blood and half water. And in my opinion a mistaken student {of Ibn Ezra} and poor in thought wrote these words. And I already revealed this in the beginning of Beresishit that mistaken students (talmidim toim) put out pliliah.

I am fairly sure that Ibn Ezra did mean it, and did author it. It is an interesting trick by which he can denigrate the opinion but leave the man unscathed, and you kind of have to wonder if Avi Ezer truly meant it. I do not think Ibn Ezra would have appreciate it, though. Aside from all this, I am not convinced that Ibn Ezra is correct here as a matter of pshat. Hashem's command after all, mentions only Egyptians - perhaps no water was affected in Goshen, so the Jews had reserves of water. And only Egyptians dug, or that is all the pasuk informs us of, at least. I would agree with Ibn Ezra that the Egyptians did find clear water when they dug, though.

An interesting point I think I'd bring up is that the motivation of Tg Yonatan is similar to an explanation of Yitzchak's troubles when digging up wells. His servants dug up a well, and the people of the place said it was their water. An explanation given (I forget by who) is that the wells drew from a river which the residents of the place owned, so they indeed had claim to the water.

Any homiletic lessons from this? I'm sure I could conjure something up. Ain Mayim Ela Torah. Water represents Torah. Sometimes, you cannot get true pshat the direct way - ain lsihtot min hayeor. If so, you should dig deeper, perhaps to the underlying source, and get clear refreshing water. It is not for nought that באר means both "well" and "explain."

The midwives defend themselves to Pharoah. He commanded them to kill all male Hebrew children. They don't, on on questioning, say (Shemot 1:19):
וַתֹּאמַרְןָ הַמְיַלְּדֹת אֶל-פַּרְעֹה, כִּי לֹא כַנָּשִׁים הַמִּצְרִיֹּת הָעִבְרִיֹּת: כִּי-חָיוֹת הֵנָּה, בְּטֶרֶם תָּבוֹא אֲלֵהֶן הַמְיַלֶּדֶת וְיָלָדוּ.
"And the midwives said unto Pharaoh: 'Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwife come unto them.'"

What exactly are they calling the Hebrew women? Rashi, in his second explanation, cites Chazal that they are similar to animals and need no midwives.

However, Rashi's first explanation is that כִּי-חָיוֹת הֵנָּה means that they are experts [in childbirth] as midwives {and thus do not need midwives, or can take care of the birth before the midwife comes}. As proof of this reading, he offers that in Targum, חייתא means מְיַלְּדֹת. He is correct that this is what חייתא means in Onkelos. However, Onkelos does not use this term here; he rather uses חכימן, which most take to mean wise or skillful. Rashi did not have a different text of Onkelos, but uses Aramaic, as found elsewhere in Onkelos (for example in translating הַמְיַלְּדֹת in the beginning of the pasuk), that the Hebrew word חָיוֹת found in our pasuk equals the Aramaic cognate.

Further, Rashi probably does not think that Onkelos agrees with his novel chiddush, and takes חכימן as I translated earlier, "smart." If he thought that Onkelos was saying that חָיוֹת meant midwives, Rashi would have used a different term - כתרגומו, meaning as it is translated in Onkelos, and then proceed to cite Onkelos. Rashi does this elsewhere.

Why is this important. Because, unbeknowest to Rashi, Onkelos in fact agrees! In Hebrew, and more so in modern Hebrew, חכמה means midwife.

My Rebbe in Israel, Rabbi Prag, told me the following joke. Why is a midwife called a Chachama? Because it states in Pirkei Avot, Ezehu Chacham, HaRoeh Et HaNolad!

But seriously, the term חכמה occurs on occassion in the gemara, in Rabbinic Hebrew, as a term for midwife. חכימן is the Aramaic form of the plural.

If so, why does Onkelos use חייתא (this is definate article, meaning the midwives) in the beginning of the pasuk and not use חיין (absolute form of the same) to translate חָיוֹת?

I would answer that it was done to avoid ambiguity. Had Onkelos written חיין, or חייתא, it would be in the same form as חָיוֹת. The reader might think that Onkelos was taking this step and thereby avoiding translating the word. The word could then still mean "animals," or "lively." Onkelos wanted a specific word, a synonym, which would have the same meaning but without the same form.

Why not use חכמה earlier in the pasuk? Because חייתא is the common word for midwife and there was no potential there for confusion.

Tg Yonatan clearly does not take חכימן to mean this. He translates " כִּי-חָיוֹת הֵנָּה, בְּטֶרֶם תָּבוֹא אֲלֵהֶן הַמְיַלֶּדֶת וְיָלָדוּ" as :
ארום זריזין וחכימין בדעתיהון הינון, קדם עד דלא תיתי לוותהון חייתא הינון תליין עיניהן בצלוי מצלן ובעיין רחמין מן קדם אבוהן דבשמייא והוא שמע בקל צלותהון מן יד הינון מתעניין וילידן ופרקן בשלם
"for zealous and wise in their knowledge are they; before, until the midwife has not yet arrived, they raise their eyes in prayer and pray and plead for mercy from before their Father in Heaven, and He hears the voice of their prayer. Immediately they are answered and they give birth and they are saved in peace."

Here, Onkelos' חכימן has had a yud added to it, to make it חכימין. This transforms it from a noun (midwife) to an adjective. {What am I saying?? It makes it from the feminine plural to *masculine* plural, which does not make sense. The connatation changing to adjective is from the added זריזין.} In case you still don't get Tg Yonatan's meaning, he adds another adjective from nowhere to bolster חכימין - he adds זריזין. And in case you were still unsure, he appends בדעתיהון to show that it means in intellect, and is not a noun meaning, say, midwives.

I think Tg Yonatan is derivitive of an original Targum that had חכימן, midwife, like Onkelos. He was unsure what this means, and so Tg Yonatan added enough words so that it unamiguously meant what he figured it meant.

The fragmentary Tg Yerushalmi, which parallels in most places Tg Yonatan and has a close relationship to it. In fact Tg Yonatan is called by scholars Pseudo-Jonathan, since Yonatan only wrote a Targum on Neviim and Ketuvim, not on Torah. The naming of it Tg Yonatan is because the Sefer it was found in had ת"י on it, which was taken to be Targum Yonatan on the basis of the gemara's speaking of him writing a Targum. However, it probably stands for Targum Yerushalmi, and is just the full form of the fragmentary Targum Yerushalmi, with variants.

At any rate, Tg Yerushalmi writes:
ארום חיין אינון עד לא ייתי לותהון ילדתי אינון מצלן קדם אבוהון דבשמיא והוא עני יתהון ואינון ילדן
"For they are 'chayyan'; the midwives do not get to them and they pray before their Father in Heaven and He answers them and they give birth."

This is clearly a shorter, and thus probably earlier, version of the same Targum as found in Tg Yonatan. The same story of praying to Hashem occurs in both (and not in Onkelos). ילדתי is used to translate מילדות, but the word חיין occurs. As Rashi notes, this means midwife. However, just as elsewhere it is a different word that חייתא or ילדתי in the same pasuk in Targum.

I would suggest the following reconstruction. Originally, the Targum was חכימן, midwife, as with Onkelos. The rest of the verse, in Tg Yonatan and Tg Yerushalmi, meyaldot was translated in the common way (different in each variant). חכימן was chosen to be different to disambiguate. Tg Yerushalmi took it correctly as חיין and translated it as such (alternatively), since readers would be more familiar with that word. Still, this translation was not done in the initial translation step, but later, so the term does not match ילדתי from elsewhere. In Onkelos, it was retained. Tg Yonatan misinterpreted it and propped up the interpretation with a group of bolstering words that correspond to no word in the pasuk.

Thursday, January 15, 2004

In the beginning of Shemot, we meet two מְיַלְּדֹת הָעִבְרִיֹּת, "Jewish midwives," or perhaps "midwives for the Jewesses." We are told their names are Shifra and Puah. To cite Shemot 1:15:וַיֹּאמֶר מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם, לַמְיַלְּדֹת הָעִבְרִיֹּת, אֲשֶׁר שֵׁם הָאַחַת שִׁפְרָה, וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִית פּוּעָה.
"And the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah;"

Now the name Shifra has been found in a list of Egyptian names (see W. F. Albright, “Northwest-Semitic Names in aList of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century BC,” JAOS 74(1954): 229), which would imply that the midwives were Egyptians, who served (exclusively or among others) Jewish women. Alternatively, some Jews assumed Egyptian names (in addition to or instead of their Hebrew names), midrashim to the contrary. Alternatively, Hebrew names are on the Egyptian slave names - which would be understandable given that the Hebrews were *slaves*. Assuming they were Egyptian midwives for Jewesses, I would say they served non-Jews as well, because otherwise how would Pharoah believe them when they say that Jewish women give birth before the midwives get there - how would they make a living?

Now the midrash associates Shifra and Puah with Yocheved and Miriam (see Rashi). Why? One reason may be that Shemot 2 speaks of Moshe's mother and sister without giving their names, so Shifra and Puah and sucked into the vaccuum, to connote that they were the same folks. Alternatively, this is an example of the closed canon approach. That is, when we encounter a previously unencountered person who does not get much exposure, rather than saying that this is a person we do not know, we assume that it is someone from within the canon. This we say that Boaz, who is not mentioned anywhere in Shoftim, is identical with Ivtzan, who is mentioned in Shoftim. (see my discussion of closed canon here.

However, I had another thought. When Pharoah's daughter finds Moshe, she says, (Shemot 2:6) מִיַּלְדֵי הָעִבְרִים זֶה, "This is one of the Hebrews' children." However, the form of מִיַּלְדֵי הָעִבְרִים is similar to מְיַלְּדֹת הָעִבְרִיֹּת. Ignoring nikud, the consonants almost match. Further, if we could just double the mem, we would get מִמְּיַּלְדֵי הָעִבְרִים זֶה. This would be a pronouncement that Moshe is from the midwives of the Hebrews. This would be Yocheved, and once we know the identity of one of the midwives, it is not much of a stretch to identify Miriam as the other.

Can we just double the mem? It is not without precedent. The mishna in Horayot 3b relates the law that there is only a chiyuv korban when bet din is mekayem miktzat and oker miktzat, but if they say "Ain Avodah Zarah BaTorah," then there is no chiyuv korban. The gemara discusses sources for this din. On 4b, Ulah cites the pasuk in Vayikra 4:13:
וְאִם כָּל-עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, יִשְׁגּוּ, וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר, מֵעֵינֵי הַקָּהָל; וְעָשׂוּ אַחַת מִכָּל-מִצְו‍ֹת יְהוָה, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-תֵעָשֶׂינָה--וְאָשֵׁמוּ.
"And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err, the thing being hid from the eyes of the assembly, and do any of the things which the LORD hath commanded not to be done, and are guilty"

The pasuk says וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר. Ulah says you should read in it "VeNeelam *Mi*Davar." Rashi explains that the final mem of וְנֶעְלַם we throw on דָּבָר. It is nidreshet both for the word before it and after it, so implies מִדָּבָר, of the matter, and not kol davar, the entire matter.

So a mem can be doubled and darshened. Perhaps something similar is at work here.

Wednesday, January 14, 2004

More Kids on Cusp of 13
Get Faux Post-Rite Parties;
Picking Hawaiian Theme
By ELIZABETH BERNSTEIN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

After going to a dozen bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs last year, Laura Jean Stargardt told her parents she wanted one of her own. She said she found the singing inspiring and offered to learn Hebrew. She also said she wanted a big party.

Her parents thought the request was unusual since the family is Methodist. But they co-hosted a lavish party for her and two of her friends last month that looked like a bat mitzvah, without the religion. They booked a country club in
Dallas and a disk jockey, invited 125 friends, and hired a professional dancer that Laura had seen at her friends' bar mitzvah parties.

"I wanted to be Jewish so I could have a bat mitzvah," says Laura. "Having the party fulfilled that."

A number of kids about to turn 13 who aren't Jewish are bugging their parents for parties that resemble those held following bar mitzvah ceremonies. In some affluent communities, parents line up the same entertainment and book the same party places. If they don't dance the traditional Jewish hora, they at least manage a tarantella or an Irish jig.

"Parents will call us and say, 'My son's been to over 20 bar and bat mitzvahs, and I just want to do something nice for him,' " says Paul Noto, whose Carle Place, N.Y., party entertainment company recently staged one such 13th birthday party that cost $75,000 and included a tent with chandeliers, DJs and dancers.

The parties can be upsetting to Jews who say they mock an important spiritual rite of passage. Others call the trend a welcome example of Jewish traditions becoming part of popular culture. "It shows how much the Jewish people and
Jewish customs have become mainstream," says Rabbi Mark S. Diamond, executive vice president of the Board of Rabbis of Southern California.

A generation ago, when bar mitzvahs were simple affairs celebrated with a glass of Manischewitz, the idea of a copycat rite wouldn't have occurred to anybody. But, starting in the late 1960s, parties with themes became popular, and by the end of the '70s in some areas, competition was raging to make them ever more elaborate.

The bar mitzvah is actually an ancient, solemn event marking the coming of age of a Jewish male, undertaken after study of Jewish history, traditions and Hebrew. Bat mitzvahs, for girls, are a more recent phenomenon. Typically,
children start intense preparations about a year before the event, spending several hours each week learning to read from the Torah -- the scroll containing the Five Books of Moses -- and sometimes writing a speech and doing charity work.

After his daughter, Melissa, had attended a handful of bar mitzvahs a few years ago, Kevin Williams decided to spend $12,000 to throw her a faux bat mitzvah at a Manhattan hotel. About 150 people received invitations that read, "Welcome to Melissa's Black Mitzvah.... Don't get offended, it's just her 13th birthday party." There was a candle-lighting ceremony -- like those she had seen at some bar mitzvahs -- where the birthday girl's parents, friends, grandmother and uncle were called up to light the candles on her cake. "After that party, two more of her non-Jewish friends had them," says Mr. Williams.

At Hart to Hart, a party company in Woodland Hills, Calif., co-owner Marsha Bliss says she organized more than a dozen parties last year for non-Jewish 13-year-olds whose parents requested bar mitzvah lookalikes, up from three in 2001. Daniel Rose of Montville, N.J., says he did seven or eight of these parties last year, up from two in 2001. In Roslyn, N.Y., NY Rhythm Entertainment has booked about a dozen in the past two years and none before that.

Many rabbis are quick to point out that the parties have little in common with the real thing. "Bar and bat mitzvahs are about accepting adult responsibility in the community," says Rabbi Richard Block, senior rabbi of The Temple-Tifereth Israel, in Cleveland. "If non-Jews are going to emulate their Jewish neighbors, better they emulate the enduring values of Jewish tradition than the material excesses of contemporary life."

In Malibu, Calif., Danielle Davis, who is Catholic, asked her parents for a bat mitzvah after attending several of her friends'. They explained to her the true meaning of the ceremony as a Jewish coming-of-age rite. "She said, 'Some of
those things apply to me. I'm growing up and becoming a teenager. I should have a party to celebrate,' " recalls her mother, Rebecca Walls.

"Of course the kids who had great bar mitzvah parties were elevated socially. So we kind of felt a little bit of pressure to hold an event people would remember," Ms. Walls adds. In the end, Danielle had a party, in February 2002,
at a beachfront banquet hall with a Hawaiian surfing theme, a DJ and two professional dancers.

Parshat Shemot contains an interesting pasuk which might exhibit multivalence. I am noting up front that this dvar torah is not my own invention, but is rather an example of multi-valence I heard, though I don't know who originated it.

Multivalent means "having various meanings or values: subtle, multivalent allegory." Generally when we look at a pasuk, or a specific word, we try to find out its single meaning. Different meforshim might take different approaches to the meaning of the word, phrase or sentence. We then have a machloket between several commentators, with each attributing a *single* meaning to the text. Elu VeElu Divrei Elokim Chaim, at least as it is typically understood (I take a slightly different tack in terms of the meaning and range of Elu VeElu), is that each of the conflicting opinions is correct; all were said by Hashem on Har Sinai, and so all are accurate. This is hard to say when we speak of a debate in what actually happened - only one thing historically happened (which is why I disagree with the common understanding - see my posting on bereishit, about the different paths to sin, where I take on Elu VeElu).

Multivalence is a modern scholarly approach to psukim which seems to owe much to this concept of Elu VeElu. (Dr. Bernstien is involved in multivalence, and may have originated the dvar from Shemot I'll eventually get to relating. Any mistakes are mine though.) If two readings of a pasuk are possible, then perhaps both readings were intended. This is true in modern literature, where authors might use double-entendres, or carefully craft a phrase such that it conveys more than a single message. Especially when one recognizes the Divine authorship of Torah the multivalent reading becomes more and more probable. For an Omniscient G-d would know what commentators would eventually read into His Words, and could craft His Words accordingly.

In Shemot we read how Moshe is placed in the Nile as an infant and is taken by Pharoah's daughter. While raised in Pharoah's house, he is still nursed by a Hebrew nursemaid, who happens to be his true mother. There is Hebrew in him, but he is Egyptian enough in that Pharoah's daughter adopts him as a son. In Shemot 2:10:

וַיִּגְדַּל הַיֶּלֶד, וַתְּבִאֵהוּ לְבַת-פַּרְעֹה, וַיְהִי-לָהּ, לְבֵן; וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ, מֹשֶׁה, וַתֹּאמֶר, כִּי מִן-הַמַּיִם מְשִׁיתִהוּ.
"And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses, and said: 'Because I drew him out of the water.'"

and in the next pasuk, 11:
וַיְהִי בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם, וַיִּגְדַּל מֹשֶׁה וַיֵּצֵא אֶל-אֶחָיו, וַיַּרְא, בְּסִבְלֹתָם; וַיַּרְא אִישׁ מִצְרִי, מַכֶּה אִישׁ-עִבְרִי מֵאֶחָיו.
"And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown up, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens; and he saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew, one of his brethren."

The question that can be asked is who is אֶחָיו in pasuk 11. The reading that appeals to me is that it refers to Moshe's fellow Hebrews. But one could suggest that it refers to the fellow Egyptians. The problem I have with the latter is וַיַּרְא בְּסִבְלֹתָם seems to clearly refer to the Jew's burdens, but on the other hand perhaps it means the burdens of the Egyptians placed on the Jews' shoulders. Compare with Shemot 1:11:וַיָּשִׂימוּ עָלָיו שָׂרֵי מִסִּים, לְמַעַן עַנֹּתוֹ בְּסִבְלֹתָם; וַיִּבֶן עָרֵי מִסְכְּנוֹת, לְפַרְעֹה--אֶת-פִּתֹם, וְאֶת-רַעַמְסֵס.
"Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with *their burdens*. And they built for Pharaoh store-cities, Pithom and Raamses."

So we have two possible interpretations for the pasuk. The multivalent approach is to say that both meanings were intended, and that there is deliberate ambiguity at work here. Moshe was a man torn between two worlds, that of his Hebrew heritage which was also that of the slaves, and that of his adopted family where he lived a life of privilege. When he went out to see his brothers, אֶחָיו, Moshe himself was not sure which of the two, the Egyptians or the Hebrews, he considered his brothers. Seeing the Egyptian hit the Hebrew made him choose. At the end of the pasuk, we see וַיַּרְא אִישׁ מִצְרִי מַכֶּה אִישׁ-עִבְרִי מֵאֶחָיו, so we can say that now Moshe chooses the Ish Ivri to be of his bretheren. (Alternatively, one might wish to stretch the multivalence to refer to this מֵאֶחָיו as well, with Moshe choosing when he actually slays the Egyptian.)

This fits in with my post below, about Moshe rejecting one life but not necessarily being accepted immediately into the Hebrew life. Consider the next day when he chastises the Rasha who strikes his friend, the Rasha replies, מִי שָׂמְךָ לְאִישׁ שַׂר וְשֹׁפֵט עָלֵינוּ, that "Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?"

Further the Rasha says "הַלְהָרְגֵנִי אַתָּה אֹמֵר, כַּאֲשֶׁר הָרַגְתָּ אֶת-הַמִּצְרִי" which shows that perhaps Moshe is not now regarded by them as a Mitzri.

Moshe does not immediately reject the mantle of being an Egyptian. When he saves Reuel's (Yitro's) daughters, they tell their father אִישׁ מִצְרִי הִצִּילָנוּ מִיַּד הָרֹעִים, "'An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds."

(My further extension:) I would add that in the pasuk preceding Moshe's going out to visit his "brothers," their is also ambiguity which could give rise to a multivalent interpretation. That pasuk again is:

וַיִּגְדַּל הַיֶּלֶד, וַתְּבִאֵהוּ לְבַת-פַּרְעֹה, וַיְהִי-לָהּ לְבֵן; וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ, מֹשֶׁה, וַתֹּאמֶר, כִּי מִן-הַמַּיִם מְשִׁיתִהוּ.
"And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses, and said: 'Because I drew him out of the water.'"

There are three actors in this pasuk: Pharoah's daughter, Moshe's mother, and Moshe. וַיִּגְדַּל הַיֶּלֶד is done by Moshe. וַתְּבִאֵהוּ לְבַת-פַּרְעֹה is done by Moshe's biological mother to Moshe, bringing him to Bat Paroah. וַיְהִי-לָהּ לְבֵן is done by Moshe, but to whom is he being a son? וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ, מֹשֶׁה, וַתֹּאמֶר, כִּי מִן-הַמַּיִם מְשִׁיתִהוּ seems most clearly to be Bat Pharoah who drew him out of the water. But "Lah" could refer to Bat Pharoah or Yocheved. The simplest reading is that is refers to Pharoah's daughter, but there is a slight ambiguity there, which might be deliberate multivalence to show how Moshe was torn between two mothers.

Perhaos I will post later on what I think are some of the weaknesses of multivalence.

Tuesday, January 13, 2004

This is from last year, pre-blog. Tomorrow be'ezrat Hashem a post on multi-valence.

In parashat Shemot, Moshe is born, put into the Nile, found by Pharaoh's daughter, and raised in Pharaoh's palace. In Shemot 2:11-12, we are told, "And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out to his brothers, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brothers. And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand." When this deed is discovered, he becomes a fugitive and flees to Midyan.

This is the second time the Torah gives us an up-close and personal account of murder. The first was, of course, Kayin's slaying of Hevel. That is in Bereishit 4. Kayin was jealous that Hashem has accepted Hevel's offering over his own. God warned him not to act, but we are told "And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him." Hashem asked Kayin where Hevel was, and Kayin replied, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Then, Hashem said, (4:10-12) "...What have you done? the voice of your brother's blood cries unto me from the ground. And now are you cursed from the earth, which has opened her mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you till the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto you her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shall you be in the earth. "

There are many similarities between the two accounts. Both Moshe and Kayin are relatively alone when the killing happens. Kayin and Hevel are alone, and Moshe and the Egyptian are alone, except for the Hebrew slave he is saving. Moshe looks this way and that to make sure he is alone, and is upset and must flee. So both were alone, and hoped the deed would not be discovered.

Both Kayin and Moshe go on with their lives, pretending that the murder did not happen. But Hashem confronts Kayin lets him know that He knows what happened. Similarly, Moshe intercedes in a fight between two Hebrews (midrash says Datan and Abiram), who ask if he intends to slay them as he slew the Egyptian, and so Moshe knows that the matter is known (2:14).

Both Kayin and Moshe must go into exile - Kayin as a fugitive, as a punishment from Hashem, and Moshe, to flee the sword of Pharaoh (2:15)

In both instances, the ground plays an active role in concealing the deed. By Kayin, the ground absorbs Hevel's blood, and Hashem curses the ground because of it. Similarly, Moshe buried the dead Egyptian in the sand. Indeed, the midrash highlights this very point by explaining that, in the Plague of Lice, Aaron and not Moshe hits the ground, because Moshe has a debt of gratitude to the sand which concealed the Egyptian.

Also, brothers play a role. In Kayin's case, he killed his brother in an act partially sparked by sibling rivalry. Moshe's act was in defence of his brother. The Torah informs us that he went out to see the burdens of his brothers, and saw an Egyptian hitting a Hebrew, one of his brothers. Thus, he acted to protect his brother, the reverse motivation of that of Kayin.

The parallels do not end there. Bereishit 4:10 has Hashem telling Kayin, "the voice of your brother's blood cries out to me." In Hebrew, that is "Kol Demei Achicha Zoakim Eilay." The word for blood is not Dam, but Demei, which is plural. It means bloods. Zoakim means cries, but if it a plural verb - many are crying, not just one. The midrash explains the plurality by saying not just Hevel's blood cried out to Hashem but all the blood of the descendants who would have been born were crying out as well. For someone so far back in time, when there was only one other (later another), he would probably have had as many descendants as his brothers, so we are talking about 1/2 or 1/3 of the world's population. (Of course, they were all wiped out in the flood save Noach and his family, but still that is a lot of people.) The blood of Hevel and the blood of his descendants until the end of time cried out to Hashe. This goes to show us that if you take one life, it is as if you have destroyed an entire world, and if you save one life, it is considered as if you saved the entire world.

Similarly, when Moshe slays the Egyptian, we are told (2:12) "Vayifen Ko VeCho Vayaar Ki Ein Ish." He looked this way and that, and saw that there was no man. The midrash, cited by Rashi on that pasuk, explains this not as Moshe looking around to make sure he would not be seen by someone, but rather as Moshe looking with Ruach Hakodosh into future generations and seeing that had this Egyptian lived, no descendant of his would have converted to Judaism. I think a similar idea is at play here as before. The midrash is noting that by taking a life, Moshe takes not just that life but the lives of all future descendants of that life. Thus, killing is a really big deal - a life is not to be taken lightly. The midrash excuses Moshe by explaining that he looked to the future and found no merit in any possible future descendant.

This does *not* mean to imply that Jewish blood is dear and non-Jewish blood is cheap. But, it *is* predicated on the idea that life is not valuable in and of itself, but rather life is valuable if spent in service of Hashem, and thus a descendant who would convert and thus serve Hashem, as well as all his descendants, would provide reason not to kill the Egyptian despite his cruelty. Thus, it is a modification and refinement of the ideapresented by the midrash about Kayin.

To reiterate, the idea of the midrash is that Moshe weighed all future generations that would come from the Egyptian which would be cut off by the slaying of the Egyptian before taking action.

Some people ask a question - Rashi right beforehand (on 2:11) cites another midrash that the man being beaten was the husband of Shlomit bat Dibri, and the Egyptian had fooled Shlomit into thinking he was her husband and she had conceived. Shlomit's husband suspected and the Egyptian sensed this, and for this reason he was beating Shlomit's husband. The Egyptian thus fathered Shlomit bat Divri's son, who we see later on is described as the son of Shlomit bat Dibri and an Egyptian man. Shlomit's son curses Hashem and is executed for his trouble.

If so, we see the Egyptian indeed did have a Jewish descendant, though he did not really last in terms of having other descendants, nor was he successful as a servant of Hashem.

Thus, some people ask a question of the contradiction these two midrashim present. One midrash says that the Egyptian did not have Jewish descendants, while another states that the Egyptian did have a Jewish son (one born of a Jewish mother).

I intentionally stated the contradiction above ambiguously. What the former midrash *actually* states is that the Egyptian would have no descendents who would *convert*, whereas his son was Jewish and did not convert. But, that answer is just semantics - why should conversion matter so much as being Jewish?

If this question seems weak, it is because I did my job in explaining the import of the midrash. The midrash is concerned with the depriving possible future descendants of life. The son of the Egyptian and Shlomit had already been conceived. Thus, the Egyptian's death did not impact Shlomit's son insofar as depriving him of life. The distinction of convert versus JFB is indeed semantics and is not pertinent to our discussion.

The message of this dvar torah, in case it wasn't obvious, is that human life is sacred, for man was created betzelem elokim, in the image of God. As such, killing, even in such circumstances as that which faced Moshe (his killing of the Egyptian is regarded as a positive thing) is quite a serious matter, and it was proper for Moshe to reflect on this seriousness and weigh the matter before acting.

Before I leave off, I would just like two point out that we are presented with two versions of the account of Moshe killing the Egyptian. One is the pashut pshat, without midrashic elaboration, and the other is the midrashic account. Both are valuable, but it is very easy to lose sight of the pshat account if one reads with Rashi.

In the pshat account, Moshe is of Hebrew descent, but is drawn from a life of slavery or death and lives a privelaged life as a member of Pharaoh's house. Yet, he yearns to be close to his brothers and visits them as they struggle in their burdens. Seeing an Egyptian taskmaster whip a slave, as no doubt happens often, he is enraged and, in an act of Hebrew Nationalism (he looks up to a higher authority), righteous indignation, and rage on behalf of his family, he strikes out at the oppressor and kills him. Afterwards, he realizes what he has done and tries to hide the deed by burying it under the sand. He still feels close to the Jews and visits them as they work. He injects himself in an internal dispute between two Jews and they reject him as an outsider, asking who he is to judge over them, as an outsider, a statement similar to that of the Sodomites in their complaint to Lot. The refer to his slaying of the Egyptian, acting if he will execute them as well. At that, Moshe's world comes crashing down upon him. He has been rejected by the Jews, and since his crime has been discovered, he loses his priveleged life as an Egyptian and must flee as a fugitive. He helps some girls in Midian, is referred to as an Egyptian rather than a Hebrew, and is accepted as a member of the family. He lives in Midian content, until Hashem sends him back. His complaints, naturally, is that Pharaoh will not listen to him, nor will the Jews listen to him. There is a lot of raw emotion in this narrative, and it is worthwhile to pay attention.

The midrashic account presents a far different picture of Moshe. What we must bear in mind is that midrash is not monolithic. It is the product of drash from multiple members of Chazal, and many might disagree with others. As a result, it is not trivial to construct a consistent picture. One midrash might contradict another, and two midrashim might derive from different readings of the same pasuk, and thus are surely not to be placed together. So, there are truly many many many different midrashic pictures of this, with perhaps much of the story as above with a few midrashic changes here and there.

Nonetheless, I speak of the picture most people get from the chumash, particularly from Rashi (who cites midrashim left and right).

In "the" drash account, Moshe does not act on impulse or from raw emotion. He is raised in Pharaoh's house, and goes out to see his brothers. A crime of adultery was committed by the Egyptian, and now the Egyptian intends to slay the slave = the husband of Shlomit, in order to cover up his own crime. Moshe already has Ruach HaKodesh and thus is able to determine the entire situation. He determines that the halacha is that he should kill the Egyptian. Thus, his brotherly rage and indignation give way to Divine Inspiration and Halachic, Deliberate, Rational Thought. Before slaying the Egyptian, he again uses his Ruach HaKodesh to see any possible descendants, and sees that none will convert. Since, in the cold, rational, spiritual equations, no one of note will be deprived his life, Moshe decides to take action. Rather that striking the Egyptian with a forceful blow with his staff, giving vent to his rage, he simply enunces the Ineffable Name of Hashem (Shem Hameforash), harnessing its power to slay the Egyptian (we know this since Dathan and Aviram say Halihargeni Ata Omer - do you *say* to kill us, as you killed the Egyptian). Moshe at this point in his life should not know the Shem Hameforash, nor should he have ruach hakodesh - he is not yet a prophet. However, these midrashim place him in his later, mature role, of prophet, miracle worker, and lawgiver. The next day he tries to prevent two Jews, who are Dathan and Aviram, from fighting, and their response lets him know that the matter of his killing the Egyptian is known. He is thus contending with Dathan and Aviram and trying to stop them from making conflict, just as he does in his mature, Leader of Israel role (the identification of the two Jews as Dathan and Aviram is midrashic). Moshe says "Achen, Nodah HaDavar." Indeed the matter is known. But the midrash transforms this from an anguished cry of a man who must turn fugitive and abandon his luxurious life, into a moralistic and reflective statement. You see, Moshe was wondering how come the Jews were punished to be slaves and were not redeemed. Now, the matter was known - not the dead Egyptian to Pharoah - but the solution of this puzzle to Moshe. Since they inform on their own people, they do not currently merit salvation. (By the way, from the pshat/emotional perspective, he considers himself one of them in terms of being informed upon.) He is thus placed in the role of pleader of Israel's case to Hashem, and reluctantly admits defeat when faced with the facts, a role he later assumes. Perhaps the goal is to show within the raw material the greatness that eventually emerges.

Both pictures are important ones, but the latter is the most commonly seen. I encourage you to read this parasha from the pshat perspective as well.

There is a strange stress here on seeing, or lack thereof. Yaakov beheld Yosef's sons and asked מִי-אֵלֶּה (though see previous post on how this is part of a different parallelism). So he sees the sons but does not recognize them. Further, we are told that Yaakov's eyes were dim with age, and that he could not see. Even in his exclamation of joy and being able to meet Yosef again and even meet Yosef's sons, the language of seeing is used. That is, רְאֹה פָנֶיךָ לֹא פִלָּלְתִּי does not mean that Yaakov had doubted because of his failing eyesight that he would be able to process visual input to see Yosef but rather that he had not expected to encounter Yosef alive. Similarly וְהִנֵּה הֶרְאָה אֹתִי אֱלֹהִים, גַּם אֶת-זַרְעֶךָ is not expressing joy that Hashem has let his eyes process the sight of Yosef's sons but rather that he would meet them. The metaphor of "seeing" is a natural one in English as well as it must be in Biblical Hebrew, yet in the context of failing sight it resonated well.

Furthermore, there is a parallel to Yitzchak's blessing. Yitzchak too had failing sight. In Bereishit 27:1 we read:

וַיְהִי כִּי-זָקֵן יִצְחָק, וַתִּכְהֶיןָ עֵינָיו מֵרְאֹת; וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-עֵשָׂו בְּנוֹ הַגָּדֹל, וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו בְּנִי, וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, הִנֵּנִי.
"And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see, he called Esau his elder son, and said unto him: 'My son'; and he said unto him: 'Here am I.'"

Thus both Yitzchak and Yaakov, who were distributing blessings, had dim eyes because of age.

Yosef brings forth Ephraim and Menashe and aims to arrange it so that Yaakov will place his right hand on Menashe's head, but Yaakov crosses his hands to acheive the opposite effect. Further, Yaakov did this deliberately. In Beresihit 48:12-14;17-19:

And when Joseph saw that his father was laying his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him, and he held up his father's hand, to remove it from Ephraim's head unto Manasseh's head.
And Joseph said unto his father: 'Not so, my father, for this is the first-born; put thy right hand upon his head.'
And his father refused, and said: 'I know it, my son, I know it; he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; howbeit his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.'"

Thus it appears to Yosef that Yaakov has confused the younger for the older son. This is what happens earlier when Yaakov took Esav's brother. He presented himself as Esav: 27:9:

However, in this case Yaakov knew who the older brother was and who the younger was. Chazal take the words שִׂכֵּל אֶת-יָדָיו to imply that he did so with sechel, or chochma, with deliberate intent. See Onkelos who says this and Rashi who refers to the Targum. Further, later Yaakov says יָדַעְתִּי בְנִי יָדַעְתִּי.

(I think it is possible to read it as without deliberate intent, with a very careful reading. שִׂכֵּל is an irregulate word and might just denote "divert" and יָדַעְתִּי בְנִי יָדַעְתִּי might be a response to Yosef's complaint that he now knows the other is the bechor and he still has blessings in reserve. In other words, "calm down, I've got this under control.")

Further, Esav presses Yitzchak to give him a blessing as well, saying (in 27:38) הַבְרָכָה אַחַת הִוא-לְךָ אָבִי--בָּרְכֵנִי גַם-אָנִי, אָבִי, and Yitchak responds by giving him a blessing. Similarly, Yosef seems to protest about precedence given to the younger, and Yaakov responds by saying that Menashe will also be great. 48:19

וַיְמָאֵן אָבִיו, וַיֹּאמֶר יָדַעְתִּי בְנִי יָדַעְתִּי--גַּם-הוּא יִהְיֶה-לְּעָם, וְגַם-הוּא יִגְדָּל; וְאוּלָם, אָחִיו הַקָּטֹן יִגְדַּל מִמֶּנּוּ, וְזַרְעוֹ, יִהְיֶה מְלֹא-הַגּוֹיִם
"And his father refused, and said: 'I know it, my son, I know it; he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; howbeit his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.'"

Replacing the younger for the older in a blessing from a blind man, is parallelism, and the fact that Yaakov did it deliberately suggests somewhat that he was trying to recreate his father's deathbed blessing scene.

There are also some out there who suggest that Yizchak knew full well that it was really Yaakov and not Esav and was playing along. I am not sure that I would subscribe to this theory, but Yaakov's deliberate actions here might inform on Yitzchak's actions back then that they were intentional.

The second example of Biblical parallelism I found in Vayechi was between the meeting of Yaakov and family with Esav, when Yaakov returned from Charan and the presentation of Ephraim and Menashe to Yaakov. The similarity of language is striking.

In Vayechi, in Bereishit 48:2, Yaakov hears that Yosef is coming, is strengthened, and sits upon the bed (see my post below for a suggestion explaining this phenomenon:

There is then a short interjection of a blessing that Yaakov gives Yosef, but it is not clear whether this happens before or after the following narrative in 48:7, for after this blessing Yaakov refers to Yosef's two sons and adopts them as his own.

After the interjection Yisrael sees Ephraim and Menashe and asks who they are. In 48:8-9:

The parallel account, of Yaakov's meeting with Esav, is in Bereishit 33:5-6:

וַיִּשָּׂא אֶת-עֵינָיו, וַיַּרְא אֶת-הַנָּשִׁים וְאֶת-הַיְלָדִים, וַיֹּאמֶר, מִי-אֵלֶּה לָּךְ; וַיֹּאמַר--הַיְלָדִים, אֲשֶׁר-חָנַן אֱלֹהִים אֶת-עַבְדֶּךָ.
"And he lifted up his eyes, and saw the women and the children; and said: 'Who are these with thee?' And he said: 'The children whom God hath graciously given thy servant.'"

have that person ask who they are, in remarkably similar language:
מִי-אֵלֶּה
מִי-אֵלֶּה לָּךְ

and the reply, in both cases about children (Yaakov omits mention of his wives even though they are in the query), is that these are the children Hashem has granted:
בָּנַי הֵם, אֲשֶׁר-נָתַן-לִי אֱלֹהִים בָּזֶה
הַיְלָדִים, אֲשֶׁר-חָנַן אֱלֹהִים אֶת-עַבְדֶּךָ

In both cases the party presenting the children bows to the person to whom the children are being presented.

Yaakov bows to Esav in 33:3

וְהוּא, עָבַר לִפְנֵיהֶם; וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אַרְצָה שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים, עַד-גִּשְׁתּוֹ עַד-אָחִיו.
"And he himself passed over before them, and bowed himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother."

and Yosef bows to Yaakov in 48:12:

וַיּוֹצֵא יוֹסֵף אֹתָם, מֵעִם בִּרְכָּיו; וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ לְאַפָּיו, אָרְצָה.
"And Joseph brought them out from between his knees; and he fell down on his face to the earth."

In both instances the family members are brought forth to be received.
Yaakov's children to Esav, in Bereishit 33:6-7:
וַתִּגַּשְׁןָ הַשְּׁפָחוֹת הֵנָּה וְיַלְדֵיהֶן, וַתִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶיןָ.
וַתִּגַּשׁ גַּם-לֵאָה וִילָדֶיהָ, וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ; וְאַחַר, נִגַּשׁ יוֹסֵף וְרָחֵל--וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ.
"Then the handmaids came near, they and their children, and they bowed down.
And Leah also and her children came near, and bowed down; and after came Joseph near and Rachel, and they bowed down."

In both cases this happens immediately after the question of Mi Eleh followed by the response, and in both cases the word used to describe it is נִגַּשׁ.

Finally, and this is a bit of a stretch: in both cases Yaakov speaks of his enjoyment of finally seeing the other party.

With Esav, in 33:10:

וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב, אַל-נָא אִם-נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ, וְלָקַחְתָּ מִנְחָתִי, מִיָּדִי: כִּי עַל-כֵּן רָאִיתִי פָנֶיךָ, כִּרְאֹת פְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים--וַתִּרְצֵנִי.
"And Jacob said: 'Nay, I pray thee, if now I have found favour in thy sight, then receive my present at my hand; forasmuch as I have seen thy face, as one seeth the face of God, and thou wast pleased with me."

I've left the most striking, most blatant, and seemingly most deliberate (on Yaakov's part) parallel for last - that of the blessing of Ephraim and Menashe with the blessing of Yaakov and Esav. Hope to get to that tomorrow.

Wednesday, January 07, 2004

Oops! I misquoted Speiser. The ideal Egyptian lifetime was 110, not 130 as I wrote (and have since corrected) in an earlier post in Vayigash. So, Yaakov actually had already surpassed this ideal by 20 years. Speiser does not actually make reference to the ideal Egyptian lifespan in this context. Note though that Yosef lives the ideal lifespan. Speiser does note that fact, referring us to Vergote pp. 200f.

This might carry some meaning in terms of how much Yosef became Egyptianized.

Tuesday, January 06, 2004

In parashat Vayechi, Yaakov calls Yosef to him (47:29) and makes Yosef swear to him that he will bury Yaakov in Israel, in not in Egypt. Yosef so swears. Then, we are told, Yaakov prostrates himself on the head of the bed (47:31). Then, (48:1): אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, after these events, Yosef is told his father is sick, and he goes to visit his father, accompanied by his two sons, Ephraim and Menashe. Yaakov is told (48:2) that Yosef has come, he gathers his strength, and sits on the bed. He adopts Ephraim and Menashe as his own, asks who the kids are, is told they are Ephraim and Menashe, and blesses them.

There are many big issues here, but among them is the question why, in 47:31, Yaakov prostrates on the head of the bed.

This seems to be either a full prostration, or as some would have it, a mere nodding of the head. Assuming it is a full prostration, why? Let us examine the pasuk in more detail. Yaakov had just asked Yosef to bury him in Israel and Yosef agreed. The pasuk states:

וַיֹּאמֶר, הִשָּׁבְעָה לִי--וַיִּשָּׁבַע, לוֹ; וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַל-רֹאשׁ הַמִּטָּה
He said, swear to me, and he swore to him and Yisrael bowed down on the head of the bed. {My translation.}

The Va in וַיֹּאמֶר ,וַיִּשָּׁבַע and וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ is the vav hahipuch, and just serves to reverse imperfect (future to past). Yomer is future; VaYomer is past. It can also serve as an and in addition to reversing tense. That is why I translated "he said" rather than "and he said."

Why did Yaakov prostrate himself? The most obvious explanation would be gratitude at the favor being granted. This, of course, is problematic, since we would not expect a father to do that towards his son. This might be an anachronistic assumption, though.

Rashbam explains וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל as Yaakov bowing down to Yosef. Ibn Ezra at first concurs, saying he bowed down to Yosef, for he apportioned honor to kingship. (Yosef was the Vizier of Egypt.) Then, Ibn Ezra says, "VeHanachon BeAynay," what is correct in my view, is that he was giving praise to Hashem, and this is not like Avraham's bowing, for there is specifies "to the sons of Chet."
To explain Ibn Ezra, he is backtracking, saying that Yaakov did not bow down to Yosef, but rather to Hashem. Whenever bowing is stated without modification, Ibn Ezra would have it refer to bowing to Hashem. By Avraham, when he bought Mearat Hamachpela, he powed to the sons of Chet, but there the pasuk says explicitly to whom he bowed.

Note that even in Ibn Ezra's first explanation, where Yaakov bows to Yosef, he does so in honor of kingship, but not out of gratitude of favor.

My slight bone to pick with Ibn Ezra is that in 48:12, after Yaakov says he will bless Epharim and Menashe and praises Hashem for letting him see Yosef and Yosef's sons, Yosef bows (at leat it seems it is Yosef - see the pasuk). According to Ibn Ezra, this would be a bow to Hashem and not to Yaakov, but a bow to Yaakov feels more correct there. At any rate, Ibn Ezra makes no comment there about the target of the bow, so I know not what Ibn Ezra would say.

Even if the bow was for Yosef's malchut, Chazal do state that Yosef was punished for letting his father bow down to him and not objecting. However, Chazal are not monolithic in this regard. See Rashi on the pasuk, where he clearly reads the bow as directed towards Hashem.

I would like to propose an additional reading of the pasuk, and then will analyze some objections to that reading.

וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ means he lay prostrate and prone. Typically this happens on the ground. Here, the pasuk says it happened on the head of the bed. Why does prostration convey respect? I would say that on a basic level, it conveys powerlessness - lack of power to move, and total submission. Someone prostrate is vulnerable and powerless. Doing this to someone who has done you a favor shows the extent of your gratitude, and how you regard them in terms of having helped you.
Doing this to a king shows that he has power over you, and that you have no power comparative to him (kind of like submitting to the alpha male in a pack of wolves). Doing this towards Hashem conveys the same message - one of absolute subservience and lack of independent power.

But, prostration might indicate actual powerlessness. If someone really lacks power, because of illness, he might lie prostrate on a bed. I contend that this is what is happening to Yaakov. As a result, his prostrating on the "rosh hamita" has nothing to do with gratitude towards Yosef's oath, nor showing honor to kingship, nor thanking or honoring Hashem. Yaakov is ill, and has no power to move.

If so, how come there is a "va" connecting it? Yaakov asks Yosef to swear, Yosef swears, "Va" Yisrael prostrates himself on the rosh hamita. The answer is as I set it up beforehand. Va is the vav hahipuch - changing imperfect to perfect, but need not function also as a conjunctive "and."

The next pasuk states, (48:1)
וַיְהִי, אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, וַיֹּאמֶר לְיוֹסֵף, הִנֵּה אָבִיךָ חֹלֶה...
"It was after these matters, it was said to Yosef, Behold your father is ill."

I would contend that ""It was after these matters" serves to tell us that this next event happened after Yosef's oath, but does not serve to put Yaakov's prostration in the previous narrative. I would contend that Yaakov became ill and lay prostrate on his bed, so {after the previous events} Yosef was told that his father was ill, and so he went with Ephraim and Menashe to cisit his father.

So, he needs to envigorate himself to be able to sit on the bed. Or, perhaps, news that Yosef was coming gave him the strength he needed to be able to sit on the bed. For, he was sick, and was until now laying prostrate on the bed.

The three psukim, in order with no breaks, tell us Yaakov was prostrate al rosh hamita, yosef was told his father was sick and came to visit him, Yaakov is told Yosef is coming, gains strength, and sits al hamita.

I think this is fairly clear, based on the juxtoposition and based on the parallel language. This parallel is the עַל-הַמִּטָּה in both psukim, and fact that both psukim in referring to Yaakov's actions call him yisrael, even though the referent to the forefather in the first part of the pasuk calls him Yaakov.

What are the objections to this? Well, first off, we are not supposed to be posek a pasuk that Moshe Rabeinu did not set off as a pasuk. My reading breaks off logically the end of 47:31 about the prostrating, and that might be considered a separate pasuk.

Secondly, and this is not really a big deal, it breaks a perek boundary. Logically, the end of 47:31 should be the beginning of the next perek. Of course, the perakim we have were ordered by Christians, and so we are not bound theologically in any way to conform to their ordering, and in fact we often do not. Also, since we are talking about a break mid-pasuk, part of the pasuk does in fact belong to the previous perek so no perek can lay full claim.

More problematic is the petucha (the bold peh in the chumash, break to the end of the line in the Torah). The petucha marking is right by the perek breaking. And, my suggestion should have the end of the previous pasuk after the petucha. We do indeed, in some instances, have a petucha breaking in the middle of a pasuk. But here, it does not do it. Petuchot and Setumot are very ancient forms of commentary. Ezra was metaken them, and it presents a similar problem to cutting off a pasuk Moshe did not break off. Perhaps we could answer, as above, that we would not put a petucha mid-pasuk, and then the pasuk has as much right to be before the petucha as after it.

On the other hand, we already seemed to have had dispute with Ezra's division once. In general, we separate pashiyot where Ezra put spacing. But, parashat Vayechi has no spacing separating it from the previous parasha. In fact, the Midrash Rabba gives three explanations what the fact that the parsha is stuma= closed- is supposed to mean, of which Rashi cites two and the Kli Yakar gives explanation to all three and explains why Rashi only cited two. In general, those attempting to explain Rashi or the midrash (see Siftei Chachamim and Kli Yakar) understand that Ezra knew this parasha division and left it Stuma to convey a message, so the midrash is an attempt to find cause for Ezra's deliberate omission of a break. But, it could also be easily read as a dispute between Ezra, who ordered the breaks, and Chazal, who ordered the parshiyot. The midrash would be built upon this dispute.

Another problem is the "וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" in 48:1, but I already dealt with that. Another problem would be that later, in regard to Yosef, Vayishtachu denotes bowing, so it is strange to give it another import here. I think the closer psukim would take precedence in determining meaning, but it does give one pause.

At any rate, Yaakov was heartened to hear of Yosef's arrival, and he gained strength, or felt obligated to gather strength. For the second reading, see Rashi. I am leaning towards the first explanation - that Yosef's arrival granted him strength, especially based on his delight at seeing Yosef and Yosef's sons (see pasuk 48:11).

The lesson this can teach us we can see in very bold, wide strokes. Yosef's visit gave his ailing father strength, by giving him nachas. We too, should visit our parents or grandparents, if they are feeling ill, or even if they are feeling healthy, thereby giving them nachas by our mere presence, and thus grant them strength.

Blogroll

YESHIVA WORLD NEWS

Followers

about

parshablog is published by (rabbi) josh waxman (joshwaxman [at] yahoo [dot] com), a grad student in Revel, a grad student in a Phd program in computer science at CUNY. i recently received semicha from RIETS. this blog is devoted to parsha as well as whatever it is i am currently learning.